3 ms·

Because if there’s no free will, the person you’re punishing merely behaved according to the state in their brain and couldn’t have acted differently in the mom

Because if there’s no free will, the person you’re punishing merely behaved according to the state in their brain and couldn’t have acted differently in the moment. Punishment is still useful as a deterrent, but there’s no “they deserved it” component. I’m not quite sure what to make of it all. I read Sam Harris’s book on the subject, and can’t fault the logic. On the other hand I find the conclusion unsettling and prefer not to dwell on it. Usually I follow the logic fearlessly whatever it takes me, regardless of my feelings. But on this one, I do not. I think free will aside, I’d rather the legal system focused on rehabilitation than on punishment where possible. It just screws up enough that the punishment might be applied to an innocent person. Also you want people that are able to rejoin society to do so from a position where they have hope and opportunity, and don’t fall back on old habits.

kzrdude 3y ago
Philosophically, I think there is a "you deserved it", maybe even more so, if there is no free will. After all, it is then unavoidable. How could it be any more deserved than that? :)
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
If there's no free will, I'm merely punishing according to a state in my brain and I couldn't act differently. > I’d rather the legal system focused on rehabilitation than on punishment where possible. Rehabilitation is science fiction. We're vaguely aware that we should be able to travel to other stars... and we might manage that too, someday. But at least the details are known with that one. We understand how much reaction mass it'd take. What payloads would be possible. We have an inkling of how to make some robotic probe navigate a new stellar system. Rehabilitation? If we define it in a meaningful way, that is for a criminal that is likely to reoffend again in a significant way after being released... can we condition that incarcerated human to have a measurably lower risk of reoffense? That's voodoo. There are lots of ways to cheat it (just pick the criminals who are unlikely to reoffend and put them in resort prison for a short stint far away from the bad apples). Lots of ways to be blind to the bad outcomes, and overemphasize the good outcomes no one should take credit for. I've asked many times for someone to cite some credible theory of (criminal/non-criminal) human minds that makes it possible to lower the risk of recidivism... and everyone's sure that there must be. If you don't even have such a theory, how can you engineer a solution? The best that I ever hear is "but Europe!".
- slashdev 3y ago
  I believe people can change. Especially if given the opportunity. Even if, often, they don’t. You’re essentially saying once a criminal, always a criminal. That’s objectively false, even if it might be a statistically sound bet (I don’t know if it is, but to address the strongest version of your argument.) How best to go about that is an open question, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    I didn't say that I don't believe people can change. You're very confused. For that matter, I assert that it is definitively provable that some people do change, and likely that the details of their personality and circumstances would demonstrate that this is generalizable to everyone. In short, everyone can change... not just some. But that they can change is nothing like the idea that because people can change that we know how to rehabilitate. You're so very confused. The idea that "people can change" is somehow equivalent to you with the idea that "rehabilitation is something science has figured out enough that we can skip straight to the applied science or even engineering phase". What makes you confused like that? Are you prone to bouts of emotional irrationality? Are there many members of your family that are susceptible to magical thinking? You say "I believe in lightning". I'm saying "but we don't know how to harness electricity". And we don't. You should stop using phrases like "objectively false" until you're able to think more clearly. > but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying. Yes, it actually does mean that. For one, the dangers of random experimentation on a criminal element that we have quite reasonably sequestered away from those they would harm can't even be easily measured. For another, it is actually unethical to experiment on human beings in this way. Even on prisoners. The "it's worth trying by randomly doing shit and hopefully we'll stumble across something that seems like it will work when it takes decades to determine if someone has spontaneously rehabilitated" sentiment is lunacy. Figure out how to do it first, and we'll talk. PS Don't bother, I figured it out a few years ago. At least in principle. The trick is to have non-convicts outnumber the convicts, probably at minimum to a ratio of 12:1. Could be higher. Then we have to screen those correctional officers. And build every convict their own prison that looks too much like a home to make the voting public comfortable. So that we don't get any weird folie à deux issues, each room in that "prison" will need to be surveilled, and the correctional officers rotated out if things start to go off the rails. This would work, but it can't... that's 600,000+ guards in Ohio alone. Heck of a jobs program, until it works so thoroughly that there are no prisoners left and I tank the economy. And all those single-prisoner prisons that I spent a million bucks on each (50,000 of them in Ohio, for the bargain price of $50 billion) that are hidden in all the suburbs and whatnot... what is anyone going to do with those? I actually think about this stuff. It's never been more than a passing sentiment to you.

kzrdude 3y ago

Philosophically, I think there is a "you deserved it", maybe even more so, if there is no free will. After all, it is then unavoidable. How could it be any more deserved than that? :)

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

If there's no free will, I'm merely punishing according to a state in my brain and I couldn't act differently. > I’d rather the legal system focused on rehabilitation than on punishment where possible. Rehabilitation is science fiction. We're vaguely aware that we should be able to travel to other stars... and we might manage that too, someday. But at least the details are known with that one. We understand how much reaction mass it'd take. What payloads would be possible. We have an inkling of how to make some robotic probe navigate a new stellar system. Rehabilitation? If we define it in a meaningful way, that is for a criminal that is likely to reoffend again in a significant way after being released... can we condition that incarcerated human to have a measurably lower risk of reoffense? That's voodoo. There are lots of ways to cheat it (just pick the criminals who are unlikely to reoffend and put them in resort prison for a short stint far away from the bad apples). Lots of ways to be blind to the bad outcomes, and overemphasize the good outcomes no one should take credit for. I've asked many times for someone to cite some credible theory of (criminal/non-criminal) human minds that makes it possible to lower the risk of recidivism... and everyone's sure that there must be. If you don't even have such a theory, how can you engineer a solution? The best that I ever hear is "but Europe!".

slashdev 3y ago
I believe people can change. Especially if given the opportunity. Even if, often, they don’t. You’re essentially saying once a criminal, always a criminal. That’s objectively false, even if it might be a statistically sound bet (I don’t know if it is, but to address the strongest version of your argument.) How best to go about that is an open question, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  I didn't say that I don't believe people can change. You're very confused. For that matter, I assert that it is definitively provable that some people do change, and likely that the details of their personality and circumstances would demonstrate that this is generalizable to everyone. In short, everyone can change... not just some. But that they can change is nothing like the idea that because people can change that we know how to rehabilitate. You're so very confused. The idea that "people can change" is somehow equivalent to you with the idea that "rehabilitation is something science has figured out enough that we can skip straight to the applied science or even engineering phase". What makes you confused like that? Are you prone to bouts of emotional irrationality? Are there many members of your family that are susceptible to magical thinking? You say "I believe in lightning". I'm saying "but we don't know how to harness electricity". And we don't. You should stop using phrases like "objectively false" until you're able to think more clearly. > but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying. Yes, it actually does mean that. For one, the dangers of random experimentation on a criminal element that we have quite reasonably sequestered away from those they would harm can't even be easily measured. For another, it is actually unethical to experiment on human beings in this way. Even on prisoners. The "it's worth trying by randomly doing shit and hopefully we'll stumble across something that seems like it will work when it takes decades to determine if someone has spontaneously rehabilitated" sentiment is lunacy. Figure out how to do it first, and we'll talk. PS Don't bother, I figured it out a few years ago. At least in principle. The trick is to have non-convicts outnumber the convicts, probably at minimum to a ratio of 12:1. Could be higher. Then we have to screen those correctional officers. And build every convict their own prison that looks too much like a home to make the voting public comfortable. So that we don't get any weird folie à deux issues, each room in that "prison" will need to be surveilled, and the correctional officers rotated out if things start to go off the rails. This would work, but it can't... that's 600,000+ guards in Ohio alone. Heck of a jobs program, until it works so thoroughly that there are no prisoners left and I tank the economy. And all those single-prisoner prisons that I spent a million bucks on each (50,000 of them in Ohio, for the bargain price of $50 billion) that are hidden in all the suburbs and whatnot... what is anyone going to do with those? I actually think about this stuff. It's never been more than a passing sentiment to you.